FifteenEightyFour | Cambridge University Press » Sociologyhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org
The Official Blog of Cambridge University PressFri, 24 May 2019 10:41:53 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.3.1“Why Bother?”: An Introductionhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/05/why-bother-an-introduction/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/05/why-bother-an-introduction/#commentsThu, 02 May 2019 06:11:05 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=29394Changes in the levels of political participation can alter the course of history. If turnout had been higher among young British voters in the 2016 European Union membership referendum, the United Kingdom might have decided to remain in the EU. If a wave of protests had not taken off in Kiev in the winter of 2013–14, the government of Viktor Yanukovych might have remained in power instead of falling, and Russia would not have invaded Crimea.

Our book, Why Bother? Rethinking Participation in Elections and Protests, shows that existing theories and ideas that social scientists rely on to explain why people take part in collective action in politics fall short in crucial ways. Some rely on assumptions that are counter-intuitive to the basic tenets of human psychology. Others fail to predict regularities that we observe around the world. Most recently in the U.S., for instance, turnout in the 2018 midterm election was exceptionally high. Most commentators have pointed to voters’ perceptions of the high stakes of the election result as a key factor boosting turnout. Yet social scientists have tended to explain variations in turnout as related less to the perceived stakes of the outcome, and more to changes in the costs of voting – how much money, time, and effort it takes to cast a ballot.

Not infrequently, when the costs of participation rise, people become more likely to be involved, not less. Voter id laws meant to discourage targeted groups from voting, by raising the costs of participation, have had weaker effects than expected in the U.S. And when police repress demonstrators, instead of ending, protests often grow, as we witnessed in Turkey, Brazil, and Ukraine.

To make sense of these and other facts about mass participation, in our book we offer a new theory of why people take part in collective action in politics, and test it in the context of voting and protesting. Our central argument is that while voting is indeed costly, abstaining can impose costs as well. These costs of abstention are intrinsic and psychological, taking the form of psychic tension, or dissonance, when people fail (or anticipate they’ll fail) to take part. And they kick in only when people care about the outcome of the collective action, be it voting or protest participation. The strategic context – the expected closeness of the election result or the number of people demonstrating in the streets and presence of repression of protesters – also shapes the costs of abstention.

Our study draws on a wealth of survey data, interviews, and experimental results from Brazil, Sweden, Turkey, U.K and the U.S. We show increases in people’s sense of the importance of elections increases their willingness to vote, and this effect is stronger when the expected outcome is close. People’s subjective moods deteriorate when they anticipate not participating in an election that they care about. In the contexts of protests, we show that government repression of protesters can drive up both costs of participation and abstention, so in certain circumstances it can have a net mobilizing effect. We also explore topics like the malleability of people’s sense of a civic duty to vote and politicians’ and activists’ use of emotions to get people involved.

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/05/why-bother-an-introduction/feed/0Appearance Bias and Crimehttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/04/appearance-bias-and-crime/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/04/appearance-bias-and-crime/#commentsTue, 09 Apr 2019 15:32:52 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=29071As strange as it may seem, there is very little research on the topic of physical appearance and its relationship to criminal involvement, criminal victimization, and the crime control process. While it is popularly known that young Black men are disproportionately singled out for arrest and receive harsher sentences than those with other appearance traits, often with life-threatening consequences, there is a dearth of systematic study of the relationship.

This new book explores the relationship in a range of ways. First, the selections in this edition address the process of crime control as dependent on appearance bias, from the point of suspicion to death penalty. At every stage, crime control agents (police, courts, correctional personnel) and others (the public who report crime, schools, health care professionals, etc.) make judgments about people’s physical traits resulting not uncommonly in incorrect assessments. For instance, if a person with societally-determined unappealing traits is suspected of being involved in crime, that person is more likely to be arrested, with a mug shot following, a court appearance following that, with conviction and sentencing as the final stage. In each stage, physical appearance can increase or decrease the likelihood of being free or being punished.

Another, inseparable consideration is appearance of crime victims. I write “inseparable” because sometimes offenders are also victims. Here we find that, albeit with caveats, attractive white people are less likely to be ensnared in the crime control system as offenders and, when they are, are treated more fairly as victims. Victimization often overlaps with criminality and is affected by physical traits.

The physical traits that comprise our judgments of criminal involvement and victimization (as well as our judgments about intelligence, personality, overall “goodness” and worthiness) are widely varied. Skin color, dentition, age, gender, body size, deformities, skin conditions, disabilities, clothing, grooming, and overall “beauty” versus or unattractiveness, etc. all can lead to judgments about criminal involvement. Some of these traits are demographic and are beyond our control, determined by genetics or simply luck. For example, poor people are less likely to have access to dental and other health care and poor people are more likely to be racial minorities. So, socioeconomic status can determine what one looks like and how that person is received by the world, as a good person (worthy of fair treatment) or a bad person (deserving of unfair treatment).

Attention is paid to the traits of the crime control actors themselves. The police presence can be service-oriented, with law enforcement personnel and their equipment serving to reassure the public that they are there to help, as when the police dress casually and are on foot. Or the police presence can be intentionally intimidating, as when law enforcement officers wear body armor and are accompanied by tanks and heavy weaponry.

Among the topics covered in this volume are as described above plus the effect of physical appearance on human trafficking, terrorism, LGBTQ status as a signal of criminality, etc. Complex interactions between variables are explored as in the relationships among LGBTQ appearance, race, and criminal assumptions. Causality is discussed as in the case of imprisonment worsening or improving the appearance of prisoners. Appearance traits are described as granular, for instance, while Blackness is an enormous factor in crime judgments, so are other racial traits notably Indigenous peoples are their treatment in the crime control system. Another minutely examined finding is the relationship between terrorist appearance and culture, with white “homegrown” appearance overlooked as terrorist while jihadi appearance is singled out as dangerously terrorist. The volume concludes with solutions to this form of social inequality, such as social movements, legislative and policy changes, and a proposal for a sub-discipline: appearance criminology.

Appearance Bias and Crime edited by Bonnie Berry

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/04/appearance-bias-and-crime/feed/0How can the Second Amendment inform US gun regulation?http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/01/how-can-the-second-amendment-inform-us-gun-regulation/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/01/how-can-the-second-amendment-inform-us-gun-regulation/#commentsThu, 17 Jan 2019 10:34:39 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28340U.S. gun deaths hit a twenty year high in 2017, according to the American Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Last year, nearly 40,000 deaths resulted from firearms, most of them suicides. The rate of gun deaths now exceeds that of automobile fatalities, which, unlike gun deaths, has been steadily declining.

Despite the stark numbers, discussion of guns and gun policy in America tends to be predictable and paralyzing, and constitutional rhetoric shares some of the blame. Some opponents of gun safety measures claim very little that can be done, believing the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution stands as an insuperable barrier. Some supporters of gun safety measures also cite the Second Amendment, often with despair, and some even conclude that our society would be better off if the Second Amendment were repealed.

The political conversation is unhealthy, and the Second Amendment’s invocation in these debates is frequently ill-informed, hyperbolic and corrosive. There are lots of epithets but not a lot of understanding. There’s lots of shouting but not a lot of listening. Too often the Second Amendment is used as a shibboleth, a way of separating “us” from “them.” As a case in point, the National Rifle Association, America’s largest gun rights organization, recently told the American College of Physicians to “stay in their lane” when the latter proposed to treat gun violence as a public health issue.

It wasn’t always this way, and it doesn’t have to continue to be this way. The Second Amendment, properly understood, can actually help to facilitate gun policy discussion, rather than shut it down. Our book, The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller aims to show how. In it, we provide a positive account of the Second Amendment – one that can cut through the talking points and bombast and help make gun policy discussions constructive, constitutionally grounded, and tractable.

The Supreme Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v.Heller (2008) made clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. It also made clear that, like all constitutional rights, it is not absolute. Gun rights and regulation coexist, as they always have, and there are legal rules for sorting out how and when. Having brought the right to keep and bear arms out of the realm of politics or natural law and into positive law, the Court has offered a way past the shouting. Call this the “constitutional alternative.”

The Positive Second Amendment does not try to resolve particular cases, nor to argue for a broader or narrower understanding of gun rights. Our point is that recognizing those rights as creatures of positive law, in the technical sense, demands an understanding of the rules of legal argument, which differs from the kind of rhetoric one often hears in the gun debate.

Constitutional law has a grammar; a set of rules about how arguments are constructed. Observing and respecting the grammar of the positive Second Amendment can help make the gun debate more constructive, and incidentally provide the kind of law most Americans consistently say they want – one that recognizes and respects rights, but also embraces a measure of common sense regulation. They know that gun rights and gun regulation can coexist and always have. And it is they, rather than the ideologues, who have the Constitution on their side.

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/01/how-can-the-second-amendment-inform-us-gun-regulation/feed/0The Bird Box and Jim Crowhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/01/the-bird-box-and-jim-crow/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/01/the-bird-box-and-jim-crow/#commentsFri, 11 Jan 2019 10:47:31 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28287It was reported that at least 45 million people watched the 2018 Netflix movie “Bird Box” in its first week. I was one of them (spoiler alert). The film focuses on a dystopian society in which a woman (played by Sandra Bullock) attempts to travel down a river and through a forest with two young children (simply called, Boy and Girl) in tow. No problem. Right? Wrong. They must make the trek blindfolded lest they glimpse an invisible force that causes insanity and suicide. Bullock’s character has watched a motley group of survivors dwindle to three. She is now the sole protector/provider. I liked this film. It had a good mix of suspense, horror, science fiction, and romance and justified eating a bag of buttered popcorn.

The Kings of Mississippi documents the experiences and challenges of a black family navigating segregation. Most dystopian stories are set in the future. In contrast, the King’s story takes place in the past. Jim Crow laws were passed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and were enforced until about 1965. And its specter loomed large, resulting in the systematic political, economic, and social oppression of blacks. Like the Kings and the people in the movie, how do you fight something you can’t see, but that can cause your death? How do you maintain your sanity and some semblance of normalcy in a society largely devoid of these features for you and yours? Paralleling the movie, the apocalyptic effects of Jim Crow meant watching people you love die literally and figuratively, others go insane, some sacrifice themselves for you, and still others steer you to safety.

For the Kings and many blacks like them, daily life in the South meant symbolically “blindfolding” themselves to avoid the direct onslaught of Jim Crow – and adaptively living through the fallout. The enemy wasn’t an invisible force, but flesh and blood people and processes linked to racial stratification. Boys or girls – regardless of their names – were often nurtured by mothers, fathers, Other Mothers, and other fictive kin based on a village mentality. And just as chirps unexpectedly provided safeguard in the film, an unassuming matriarch, Irma, fostered the King’s successes. My research across seven generations, including family narratives and census data, show how the Kings parlayed religion, education, ties to a homestead, strategic migrations, a linked fate mentality, and faith in God and themselves, into the middle class. They, like the movie’s family, were fighting for security, stability, and safety.

“Bird Box” is just entertainment. Alien invasions are not real. Similarly, Jim Crowism as it played out in the U.S. South no longer exists. Yet art often imitates life. Movies can serve as escapism. The Kings and Jim Crow were real and serve as a source of education about trials and triumphs that are an indelible part of our history.

The Kings of Mississippi by Sandra L. Barnes , Benita Blanford-Jones

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/01/the-bird-box-and-jim-crow/feed/0Rethinking the Social Scienceshttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/01/rethinking-the-social-sciences/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/01/rethinking-the-social-sciences/#commentsThu, 03 Jan 2019 15:15:10 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28256Social theory is that kind of theory which should help us to understand and explain this modern world in which we all live. What caused the rise of the modern world? What are the driving forces of the constant change inherent to modernity? And what is the underlying ‘spirit’ of such forces?

Social theory – and sociology as a discipline – can be traced back to 19th century Europe. It was indeed an attempt to come to terms with modernity. However, social theory was also part and parcel of that modernity, with its centers of learning placed in Germany, France and Britain. Often enough sociologists even came to serve as influential ideologues of modernity, failing to gain the necessary distance to their object of study. This has hampered social theory from its inception up until the present. Social theory today finds itself in a deadlock and is proving increasingly unable to offer perspectives that are of genuine help to understand and diagnose the current global condition.

While it was always recognized that social theory needs history, we argue that social theory also must be inspired by anthropology. The role of anthropology should go much beyond representing a view from ‘below’, a politically correct appreciation of cultural diversity, or a taste for the exotic and marginal. It involves attention towards key theoretical concepts developed by maverick anthropologists that uniquely facilitate a proper understanding of the modern world and some of its underlying dynamics. Such concepts include liminality, imitation, gift-relations, participation, trickster, and schismogenesis.

Our book is therefore an attempt toward revalorizing ideas and even ‘visions’ for the social sciences that were either ignored or pushed to the margins, and for all the wrong reasons. Examples include Arnold van Gennep, Marcel Mauss, Paul Radin, Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, Gregory Bateson, Victor Turner, Colin Turnbull, but also Alfred Gell, Johan Huizinga, Gabriel Tarde or René Girard. Taking their ideas seriously invites for a fundamental – even foundational – rethinking of the history and present of the social sciences. In each their way, these thinkers all broke with what we recognize as the modern-centric foundations of social theory. The problem with social theory, we argue, is not at all ‘ethnocentrism’, but rather the deeper ways in which our thinking about the world has become entrapped in the very language of modernity: modernocentrism.

The rise of modernity did not follow an inexorable path, but is rather the outcome of a series of liminal moments where trickster figures, instead of charismatic leaders, gained the upper hand by proliferating imitative processes, resulting in schismogenic developments. The perspective gained helps to overcome the triple entrapment of the present: utilitarian knowledge (or alchemic technology), the democratic public sphere (or theatricalised politics), and the exchange economy (or fairground capitalism).

From Anthropology to Social Theory by Arpad Szakolczai and Bjørn Thomassen

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2019/01/rethinking-the-social-sciences/feed/0Immigration Mattershttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/12/immigration-matters/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/12/immigration-matters/#commentsMon, 03 Dec 2018 10:25:15 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=28134Immigration is, needless to say, a very hot topic in today’s charged political climate. Still, little attention has been paid in the popular press to immigration of highly educated technological professionals. One quick fact is that around two-thirds of the professionals working in Silicon Valley are foreign born. Another is that in 2017, just over half of US private startups valued at $1 billion or more, the so-called Unicorns, were started by immigrants, and another is that 31 percent of all venture-backed founders were immigrants. Yet many such talented people are now being denied such opportunities in the US by current immigration policies. The end result could well be the loss by the US of global innovation leadership which for decades has been the driver of overall economic success. China should be delighted at our short-sighted approach to immigration.

Our book focuses on the linkage between immigration and technology, but others have also noted the issue emphasized here. William Kerr of Stanford University, for instance, recently noted that “… the United States has received exceptional inflows of human capital. This foreign talent has transformed U.S. science and engineering, reshaped the economy, and influenced society at large. But America is bogged down in thorny debates on immigration policy, and the world around the United States is rapidly catching up.”

These are all reasons why so many tech business leaders are advocating for more enlightened immigration policy. These include recently formed organizations like FWD.us founded by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and Marissa Mayer of Yahoo, as well as the Partnership for a New American Economy whose founders include former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, and also the Business Roundtable headed by Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase. Our book, Hammer and Silicon, is a testimony to the realities that immigration matters for continued leadership in innovation for the US.

by Sheila M. Puffer , Daniel J. McCarthy , Daniel M. Satinsky

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/12/immigration-matters/feed/0Beyond the Headlines on Anjem Choudary’s Release from Prison: An Insight into his Activist Networkhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/10/on-anjem-choudarys-release-from-prison-an-insight-into-the-activist-network/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/10/on-anjem-choudarys-release-from-prison-an-insight-into-the-activist-network/#commentsMon, 15 Oct 2018 15:20:57 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=27920With his imminent release from prison for inviting support for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Anjem Choudary and his network of supporters are back in the spotlight. As I write in my forthcoming book, Choudary and his fellow al-Muhajiroun (Arabic for “the Emigrants”) activists have struggled to create the Islamic caliphate in Britain for years through preaching, demonstrations, and other forms of confrontational activism that push the boundaries of free speech and association. While most activists follow a “covenant of security” that keeps them from engaging in violent attacks in Britain, numerous supporters have rejected this covenant and escalated to political violence.

Despite, or perhaps because of, all the media attention al-Muhajiroun has received over the years, the activist network remains poorly understood. From 2010 to 2015 I pushed beyond the headlines to conduct ninety-seven interviews with forty-eight activists. These respondents included leading, veteran, and rank-and-file activists. They provided many insights into how the network recruited supporters and performed its high-risk activism under challenging circumstances. They also explained why they decided to join the network, how they learned to become “committed insiders,” and how they adapted their activism in response to counter-terrorism pressure.

I also interviewed numerous activists who left the network after years of involvement. These former activists were often reluctant to discuss their youthful experimentation in al-Muhajiroun, which made them hard to access and interview. Fortunately, when they agreed to meet they were full of rich insights about their own journeys to—and from—the activist network. They provided critical details on internal matters I could not get from current supporters, such as how they funded their activism, and the attempted overthrow of Choudary by activists in Whitechapel. They also explained how they tired of their activism, grew frustrated with network leaders, and eventually decided to leave al-Muhajiroun, without escalating to political violence.

Beyond the interviews, I spent hundreds of hours interacting with activists at kebab shops and their indoctrination centers and watching them preach and protest on the streets of London. Hanging out with “the brothers” led to greater trust and rapport, resulting in more candid interviews, especially when I interviewed the same activist more than once. Watching them in action allowed me to ground my findings on what activists actually did—and not just what they told me.

The result of all this soaking and poking is the first ethnographic study of a Salafi-jihadi network based in Europe that has been implicated in political violence and sending fighters to ISIS and other militant groups. The Islamic State in Britain highlights the network’s many connections to political violence—and goes beyond them to explain how al-Muhajiroun actually works. I also explore the larger implications of my research and challenge conventional wisdom on Islamic extremism, online radicalization, and countering violent extremism (CVE) programs.

Some cases are important enough to understand on their own. Al-Muhajiroun is one such case. Yet my interest in the activist network is not merely academic. Unless we understand why some young men and women in Britain, and the West more broadly, embrace extremist ideologies and why a smaller subset of them mobilize to violence, we are not likely to prevent these processes from continuing in the future. This has consequences for all of us.

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/10/on-anjem-choudarys-release-from-prison-an-insight-into-the-activist-network/feed/0The Politics of Fighting Child Sex Trafficking in the United Stateshttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/09/the-politics-of-fighting-child-sex-trafficking-in-the-united-states/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/09/the-politics-of-fighting-child-sex-trafficking-in-the-united-states/#commentsTue, 25 Sep 2018 13:39:14 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=27805Very few issues win bipartisan support in today’s political climate. But child sex trafficking is one. Earlier this year, Congress passed two laws that allow states to criminally prosecute internet service providers who “promote or facilitate” prostitution of another person and allow individuals to sue internet service providers for civil damages for harm resulting from such actions. These laws resulted from the efforts of a politically and ideologically diverse anti-child-sex-trafficking movement that included conservatives and liberals, feminists, evangelical Christians, and others. But despite the broad-based, bi-partisan support for these laws, the politics behind them are complicated.

These complicated politics are the focus of my new book, Fighting the US Youth Sex Trade: Gender, Race, and Politics. The United States has a long history of arresting and prosecuting young people involved in prostitution. But by 2015, youth in the sex trade came to be considered by many as victims of “domestic minor sex trafficking” rather than perpetrators of crime or delinquent youth. On February 12, 2015, the United States Senate passed a resolution stating that “there is no such thing as a ‘child prostitute.’” The resolution insisted that “children trafficked for sex in the United States should not be treated or regarded as child prostitutes” but rather as “victims or survivors of rape and sex trafficking.” The resolution emphatically concluded, “children in the United States are not for sale.”

This shift in understanding has been accompanied by shifts in public policy and an increase in services available to youth survivors of prostitution. As of 2015, thirty-four states had passed “safe harbor” laws that divert youth apprehended in prostitution into social services and away from delinquency proceedings or criminal prosecution. In 2015, Congress passed a law encouraging all states to adopt safe harbor laws. By the end of 2015, there were at least seventy-four state and local task forces and working groups fighting against “domestic minor sex trafficking” around the country.

This book tells the story of how the contemporary movement to end child sex trafficking achieved these changes. I first place this movement in a broad historical context—going back to the “white slave” trade campaigns of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the 1970s campaigns against juvenile prostitution. I argue that concern about youth in the sex trade has surged during times of social change relating to sex, gender, sexuality, race and immigration in the United States, and that a gendered and racialized discourse of adult-youth predation fueled this concern and shaped policy responses to the issue.

Since the 1970s, activists have often framed youth involvement in the sex trade as an “urban” problem that was invading white middle-class communities in suburban and rural areas—black men from cities luring young, innocent and naive white girls to the city and then forcing them to become prostitutes. This latter framing echoed a deeply-entrenched historical narrative of dangerous black masculinity and white female vulnerability, one that had fueled lynching in the nineteenth century and the “white slavery” campaigns of the early twentieth century. These racialized and gendered rescue narratives shaped the solutions activists pushed and lawmakers enacted, often focusing on protecting and rescuing (white) girls and criminally prosecuting (black) men.

In contrast to this mainstream framing of the issue, some activists focused on the sexual victimization of marginalized youth, especially poor black girls and LGBTQ youth, and argued that racist and homophobic stereotypes have driven both the involvement of these youth in the sex trade and their criminalization for it. Whereas many in the mainstream movement focused on protection, rescue, and control of young people, others framed the issue in terms of empowerment of youths and the communities in which they live by focusing on the social systems that make poor girls of color vulnerable to sexual exploitation. These activists portrayed the issue as much more complicated than did the mainstream movement and resulting as much from failing social systems, like schools, child welfare, health care, and law enforcement, as from criminal behavior of adult exploiters.
This book tells the history of these varying strains of activism against the US youth trade from the 1970s to the present. In my conclusion, I assess the impacts and implications of this movement. While there has been a shift toward viewing some youth in the sex trades as victims rather than criminals, services are still significantly lacking and youth are still often stigmatized and detained, especially youth of color and LGBTQ youth. A disproportionate share of funding to address domestic minor sex trafficking goes toward law enforcement and criminal prosecution, thereby fueling the buildup of the prison industrial complex which erodes the communities where the most vulnerable youth live. Meanwhile, protective policies that control youth have prevailed over human rights-based policies that empower them. Policymakers have not heeded calls to address the social conditions that make youth vulnerable to involvement in the sex trade. Neoliberal policies enacted to fight the youth sex trade have prioritized criminal justice approaches to the issue over addressing the United States’ tattered social safety net or societal biases against youth of color and sexual minorities. In fact, the movement’s dominant framing of the issue has often reinforced racialized and gendered narratives of sexual predation and victimization that reinforce the very systems that make youth vulnerable to sex trafficking in the first place.

As a result, this movement has led to simple solutions that are unlikely to solve the complex problem of youth involvement in the US sex trade. I hope that by placing this issue in a larger historical and political context, this book will help activists and lawmakers rethink their agenda and pursue policies that are more likely to empower youth involved in the US sex trade.

Fighting the US Youth Sex Trade by Carrie N. Baker

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/09/the-politics-of-fighting-child-sex-trafficking-in-the-united-states/feed/0Add energy to your workhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/08/physics-of-energy/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/08/physics-of-energy/#commentsFri, 31 Aug 2018 13:22:30 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=27672As you return to lectures this autumn, think about the role that energy plays in whatever area you are studying. Energy is a concept that pervades all areas of science, engineering, and technology. Energy production, flow, and consumption play a central role in the modern world, driving economic, political, and social change. Are you an aspiring engineer, scientist, or social scientist, or are you studying business or management? Will you be working on term papers or a dissertation? Will you be writing up your work for publication? We believe that an understanding of the way that energy issues impact your work can give you new and deeper perspectives on your subject. Following the flow of energy through a system, whether physical, social, or economic, can provide a structure that unifies and enhances your publication or presentation. The book The Physics of Energy provides a comprehensive introduction to the underlying science of energy that may help in understanding and identifying how energy processes work in any context of interest.

The basic laws of physics constrain options for addressing real-world problems such as efficient energy storage, climate change, and the treatment of nuclear waste. An engineer, economist, manager, or politician with personal understanding of the science behind energy issues has a significant advantage in the marketplace of ideas. Thus when MIT established its energy curriculum, a core objective was to undergird the breadth and complexity of energy studies with a thorough foundation in the science behind the issues. This is why MIT’s energy studies curriculum begins with a course on the fundamental science of energy sources, uses, and systems. Implementing this goal was the challenge that led us to create our course on The Physics of Energy. Initially we had no intention of writing a book, but to our surprise, no existing textbook met our needs. Our students required a text that credited their knowledge of basic college math and physics, that covered the landscape of energy sources and uses broadly and at a consistent level, and that focused on the science uncomplicated by excursions into economics, regulation, and politics. A decade of teaching and writing lecture notes, with input from generations of students led finally to our newly published book, The Physics of Energy.

Our book covers the basic as well as applied science of energy. It presents a scientific foundation for engineering applications and a basis for informed discussions of economic, political, and regulatory issues. On subjects ranging from the limits on efficiency of solar cells to the flow of energy through climate systems, and on technologies ranging from wind turbines to air conditioners, you will find clear and concise presentations of the basic science and technology.

Are you studying to be an engineer or a designer? The devices and systems you create must acquire, store, transform, and utilize energy efficiently. Much of the engineering effort in producing smart phones, automobiles, refrigerators, and other products of the modern age goes into improving the way in which these devices process energy. The understanding of energy processes you will find in The Physics of Energy can provide a better appreciation of trade-offs or suggest new ideas for improved technologies.

Are you, like many of the students in our MIT class, working in the social sciences or a student of management or business? Competition for and exploitation of energy resources and technologies have given rise to some of the most intractable problems in the contemporary world. Externalities such as greenhouse gas emissions or radiation associated with energy production and conversion pose vexing problems for societies. From fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas to renewables such as solar, wind, and water power, energy resources and conversion systems are central considerations in social, economic, and political decision making. They will only become more important as we struggle with the inexorable effects of climate change that result from human energy usage. The Physics of Energy is designed to be the go-to reference for a scientific perspective on all of these subjects.

Are you studying to be a scientist and interested in the application of science to real world systems? Energy emerges as a unifying concept that underlies the evolution and structure of most physical systems. Energy governs the dynamical evolution of physical systems from the quantum world of photovoltaics to biological systems that have evolved in large part to optimize the gathering and utilization of energy from the environment.

Whatever your area of study, as you work on your next substantial research or writing project, you should ask questions like:

‘What is the role of energy in the system?’

‘Are there other energy sources or other ways of processing energy that may be relevant here?’

‘Are there limits to how efficient the energy processes involved in these systems can be?’

‘How do energy choices in this domain affect economic and political spheres?’

By asking these questions and forming a clear understanding of the role energy processes, limits and efficiencies play in whatever systems you are writing about, you can help frame the conceptual structure and logic of your presentation. Incorporating clear scientific understanding into your arguments will strengthen the effectiveness and clarity of your written work. While today’s energy systems can seem bewilderingly complex, understanding how these systems work begins with a clear foundation in the basic science of energy. Whatever systems or domain you are interested in, it is likely that energy plays a significant role. The Physics of Energy is the resource that lays out the basic principles to inform your work and provides a springboard to further research and study of the role of energy in many of the most fascinating and crucial questions of modern times.

The Physics of Energy, by Washington Taylor and Robert L. Jaffe is now available from Cambridge University Press. Read a free chapter here, and buy a copy

]]>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/08/physics-of-energy/feed/0The Military Budget Grows Bigger and Biggerhttp://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/08/the-military-budget-grows-bigger-and-bigger/
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2018/08/the-military-budget-grows-bigger-and-bigger/#commentsTue, 28 Aug 2018 10:31:05 +0000http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=27657By approving the FY2019 military budget not only did the U.S. Congress and President continue the long history of massive budgets for the military, they exceeded even their past largesse. In June of 2018 the Senate voted 85-to-10 to give the military one of the largest budgets in modern U.S. history. The bill signed by the president on August 13, 2018 provides a $639 billion baseline budget for the military (total of $717 billion), an increase of $16 billion over the current year (Gearan, Sonne, and Nakamura 2018; Stein 2018). Among other things, funding was authorized for 77 new F-35 fighter jets, costing $7.6 billion, development of the B-21 bomber, increases in the size of the military active duty forces by 15,600 and a 2.6% pay raise for the military. In addition, the budget includes $5.2 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund and $850 million to train and equip Iraqi forces (Garamone 2018).

A variety of arguments can be made that the U.S. ought to reduce its military spending, including that the large military budget diverts funding from other societal needs. For example, the National Priorities Project estimates that the annual military budget would fund alternatives such as 6.48 million elementary school teachers for one year, provide healthcare for 220.82 million children for one year, or solar electricity for a year for 364.26 million households (National Priorities Project nd). The amount spent to date in the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would bring every person in the U.S. who lives below the poverty line to above the poverty line for the next thirty years (White 2017).

In addition, $1 billion in military spending creates approximately 11,200 jobs in contrast to the 26,700 that that amount would create in education, 16,800 in clean energy, and 17,200 in health care (Watson Institute 2015)., Although for health professionals our primary concern is ending the effects of war itself including deaths, physical injuries and mental health and social problems, spread of contagious disease, destruction of infrastructure, damage to the natural environment, and famine, this one benefit, increased funding for health, education, etc. is sufficient reason to reduce spending on the military.

$1 billion in military spending creates approximately 11,200 jobs in contrast to the 26,700 that that amount would create in education, 16,800 in clean energy, and 17,200 in health care (Watson Institute 2015).

The forces opposing reductions to the military spending are strong, organized and entrenched in U.S. society. Congress has been “captured” by the large and wealthy military industries through their lobbying, election campaign donations, and the Pentagon-industry revolving door (Pemberton 2017). Military contractors also spread their facilities across congressional districts so that members of the House of Representatives fear that cuts to the military budget would affect local economies and their chances of reelection (Thorpe 2014). One facet of the military budget that Congress ignores is its impact on the federal deficit.

Shortly before the 2019 budget was approved the announcement was made that in the first 10 months of the 2018 budget year the budget deficit was $684 billion, a 20.8% increase over the same time last year, revenues had increased by only 1%, and there is a projected deficit of $1 trillion in 2019 (Associated Press 2018). Frequently when Congress discusses the deficit there are calls for cuts to programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Highway Administration, and other domestic programs even though the military budget is larger than the budget for non-military programs (Koshgarian 2018).

Although spending on “defense” (including Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy—responsible for nuclear weapons, the CIA, Coast Guard, and other agencies) is massive (about $1 trillion/year), there is little discussion among federal policy-makers about reducing spending for the military and directing more funding to the pressing and growing domestic problems such as public health, deteriorating infrastructure, etc. All health professionals (including psychologists) need to make research and policy advocacy for federal budgets that emphasizes domestic programs a priority in their work.

Reviews and endorsements for Preventing War and Promoting Peace

“This is a book that needs to be read, particularly, now that the sounds of war are appearing again in the chambers of power. It’s important to inform the public about the dangers of war and health professionals have a major responsibility in this task.” – Vicente Navarro, The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Chief Editor of the International Journal of Health Services

“This pathbreaking book provides an enlightening and inspiring analysis of the connections among war, empire, and health. Especially during this historical period of what has been called ‘permanent war’, as resistance to war as a tool of the failing capitalist economic system is growing around the world, the contributions in this book become essential reading in understanding our current situation and struggling to change it.” – Howard Waitzkin, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of New Mexico, and Director, Civilian Medical Resources Network.

Gearan, Anne, Paul Sonne, and David Nakamura. 2018. “Trump signs defense bill but snubs the senator the legislation is named after — John McCain” New York Times, August 13. Accessed August 17, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-sign-defense-bill-named-after-one-of-his-leading-critics–john-mccain/2018/08/13/8dc4c1d8-9f07-11e8-8e87-c869fe70a721_story.html?utm_term=.a778273b578a.

Thorpe, Rebecca. 2014. The American Warfare State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. “Costs of War: Employment Impact.” Last updated February 2015. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic/economy/employment

White, Jonathan. 2017. “A Gluttonous Military Budget Leaves Our Social Welfare in Poor Health.” In Preventing War and Promoting Peace: A Guide for Health Professionals. Edited by William H. Wiist and Shelley K. White, 205-216. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

1 William H. Wiist holds a Courtesy Faculty appointment in the School of Biological and Population Health Sciences at Oregon State University. Prior to formal retirement he was a Professor of Health Science and a Senior Scientist in the Interdisciplinary Health Policy Institute at Northern Arizona University, where his policy work focused on the influence of corporations on health, policy and democracy.